For our meeting on 10th June a couple of us went to hear Tony Campolo speak at Westminster Central Hall. This was part of Premier Radio's birthday celebrations.
He spoke about power and authority and what characterises these two ways of being/leading. He felt that power was always cooercive, if someone has power you do what they say becasue they have the ability to punish you or force you. In contract someone with authority is followed because people regognise that they are right. He felt that Jesus was someone who had power and authority, but chose to give up his power and seek to persude people thorough his exercise of authority, which comes from his love and sacrifical vunerablity.
He felt that at times the church tried to get political influence (ie. power) when it should be trying to gain authority through the exercise of loving service.
(Doug if you have anything to add please do...)
Tony Campolo
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Jesus the Jew
At the house group on 27th May we watched an episode of a Channel 4 series - 'The History of Christianity'. This episode was fronted by Howard Jacobson, an atheist Jew. He looked at the Jewish of Jesus and the disciples. The programme also explored the history of Jews and Christians and how for a long time Christians blamed Jews for the death of Jesus and how this has lead to persecution of and discrimination against Jews.
It was interesting to get an 'outsiders' view of Jesus. Jacobson was ultimately impressed with the Jesus he saw in the Gospels, with the message that he was preaching. He was less taken with the Church!
Monday, 25 May 2009
post resurrection appearances
At the house group on 13th May. We looked at some of the post resurrection appearances of Jesus. We noted that there are differences but that this was to be expected given that different people are recalling the events.
I thought it was interesting that Paul's list of appearances included his own on the Damascus Road without making any distinction between his 'vision' and the other appearances that we see in the gospels and Acts. Worth noting that Paul's letter is probably the earliest recorded account we have of the post resurrection appearances.
I thought it was interesting that Paul's list of appearances included his own on the Damascus Road without making any distinction between his 'vision' and the other appearances that we see in the gospels and Acts. Worth noting that Paul's letter is probably the earliest recorded account we have of the post resurrection appearances.
Sunday, 10 May 2009
Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire
by Brian J. Walsh & Sylvia C. Keesmaat
Good fun, if occasionally quite hard work! You'd want to be a little versed in post-modernity to get the best out if it. I like the conclusions they come to but I'm not completely convinced they they can come to them from Colossians, still feels at time that we want to make the bible (or in this case Paul) agree with us rather than accept that maybe he got it wrong :-)
random quotes
Good fun, if occasionally quite hard work! You'd want to be a little versed in post-modernity to get the best out if it. I like the conclusions they come to but I'm not completely convinced they they can come to them from Colossians, still feels at time that we want to make the bible (or in this case Paul) agree with us rather than accept that maybe he got it wrong :-)
random quotes
... the danger of wanting a god, without being willing to allow this god to speak in a voice that is radically other to our voice, is that the god we end up with is like any other consumer product we take of the shelf (p34).
... a worldview is only as good as the praxis or way of life that it engenders (p113).
There can be no indubitable foundation of knowledge, no uninterpreted experience, no completely transparent reading of the world. (Miroslav Volf) (p122)
We can probably tell as much about the real spirituality and the real worldview of a people by looking at the cars they drive, the food they consume, the gadgets that fill their homes and the garbage they throw out as we can by listening to the songs they sing and the prayers they pray (199)
Monday, 4 May 2009
Dealing with our differences
This final session looked in particular at the Bible and how we understand it and use it. In thinking about this we considered the following passage:
The passage says that scripture is 'useful', some of us felt that this was not a particularly strong word. It does not seem to preclude finding other things 'useful' in addition. Some of us felt that some Christians had put too much weight on this short passage and that a doctrine of infallibility was not really deducible from this passage. We noted that Paul in writing this is clearly not talking about what we undertaking as the New Testament which creates a kind of circular argument - ie. scripture is 'inspired' because it says so in scripture. We do not all agree with the statement that "The Bible is factually true and completely consistent."
Although we didn't think every single verse in the Bible contained useful instructions etc. we did feel that sometimes we are surprised by how some passages are understood by different people. For example some groups have found the genealogies very significant as in their culture it signifies authority.
We thought about how we can approach scripture in different ways which don't necessarily invalidate each other. For example the story of Abraham and Isaac can be seen as being about how Abraham was obedient to God and showed great faith, it could be seen as a foreshadowing of Jesus' sacrifice and it could also be seen as a condemnation of child/human sacrifice (not an exhaustive list!).
Other examples of conflict in the Bible. Paul and Barnabas had a strong disagreement - perhaps this is an example of how not to do it? Philemon and his slave Onesimus; is perhaps saying something about how relationships in Christ transcend all other relationships, ie. slave and master. Jesus suggested that anger was at the route disagreement. Matt 5.22
Ultimately we all saw the Bible as important and 'useful' but were all too aware that it could be misused and that people would always 'read' it differently.
2 Timothy 3.16-17 "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work"We looked at this passage in other translations and some used the term 'God breathed' which we liked. This is related to the word 'inspired'. This seemed to be rather poetic language.
The passage says that scripture is 'useful', some of us felt that this was not a particularly strong word. It does not seem to preclude finding other things 'useful' in addition. Some of us felt that some Christians had put too much weight on this short passage and that a doctrine of infallibility was not really deducible from this passage. We noted that Paul in writing this is clearly not talking about what we undertaking as the New Testament which creates a kind of circular argument - ie. scripture is 'inspired' because it says so in scripture. We do not all agree with the statement that "The Bible is factually true and completely consistent."
Although we didn't think every single verse in the Bible contained useful instructions etc. we did feel that sometimes we are surprised by how some passages are understood by different people. For example some groups have found the genealogies very significant as in their culture it signifies authority.
We thought about how we can approach scripture in different ways which don't necessarily invalidate each other. For example the story of Abraham and Isaac can be seen as being about how Abraham was obedient to God and showed great faith, it could be seen as a foreshadowing of Jesus' sacrifice and it could also be seen as a condemnation of child/human sacrifice (not an exhaustive list!).
Other examples of conflict in the Bible. Paul and Barnabas had a strong disagreement - perhaps this is an example of how not to do it? Philemon and his slave Onesimus; is perhaps saying something about how relationships in Christ transcend all other relationships, ie. slave and master. Jesus suggested that anger was at the route disagreement. Matt 5.22
Ultimately we all saw the Bible as important and 'useful' but were all too aware that it could be misused and that people would always 'read' it differently.
Friday, 17 April 2009
lent
At our last meeting before Easter would took a break from the dealing with conflict series of studies and had an evening where anyone could bring alone something that they wanted to share. This included poetry, art, reflections and scripture.
Dealing with conflicts in the Anglican Communion - part 3
We now talked about the best way forward... GAFCON is creating a Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (presumably a deliberate reference to the Confessing Church in German under Hitler?). Lambeth wants a moratorium on ordaining bishops who are homosexual and also same sex blessings and to review the structures of the Anglican Communion to see how unity can be maintained, this being an issue of authority. Some of us felt that GAFCON's approach was too exclusive. That it might be possible to have some form of compromise, that we should at least try and find some kind of way forward that keep everyone together. Some of us also felt that it might be possible for different people, different communities and cultures to move at different speeds and it wasn't necessary or even desirable for all parts of the Anglican Communion to operate in the same way. But we also recognised that this can be difficult. Some of us felt that neither 'solution' was best, that to, in effect split, was damaging and to try and impose a practice/doctrine on the whole Communion was not helpful either.
Implications for St John's. We should recognise that there will be a wide range of views about these issues and that it will not be possible or right to try and get a "St John's" view of this issues. To recognise that people hold views sincerely and at times passionately and that we should respect each other as fellow Christians even as we disagree with each other on this and other issues.
Implications for St John's. We should recognise that there will be a wide range of views about these issues and that it will not be possible or right to try and get a "St John's" view of this issues. To recognise that people hold views sincerely and at times passionately and that we should respect each other as fellow Christians even as we disagree with each other on this and other issues.
Sunday, 22 March 2009
Dealing with conflicts in the Anglican Communion - part 2
Carrying on from last weeks' study, looking now mostly at approaches to scripture.
Some of us thought that GAFCON's idea that scripture should be 'translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church's historic and consensual reading' might make finding something new in scripture difficult, it might tend to fix the meaning or rather interpretation of scripture.
The statement from Lambeth was much longer (as it always seems to be!) and seemed a bit of a fudge to some of us. The statement talks of using a range of different approaches to scripture 'under the guidance of the Holy Spirit' so perhaps both groups are making an appeal for having authority for their views?
We looked at two passages. Romans 1.18-33 A traditional way of reading this passage would be to see it as condemning homosexual acts. It has also been seen as being primarily about idol worship, also that what Paul writes about here cannot be compared to faithful, stable homosexual relationships that are part of 21st century Britain. How we see scripture obviously effects how we respond to this passage. If we take the GAFCON view their seems little scope but to see this passage as condemning homosexual relationships, however some Christians will not think that this passage condemns homosexual behaviour as we understand it now in our culture, they will want to take into account the change in context from when the letter was written to when it is being read now. Also they will want to bring to the passage knowledge about human sexuality that was not know by Paul. Both of these approaches take scripture seriously and see scripture as authoritative. Another approach is to accept that Paul really is condemning homosexual behaviour and to see that this presents us with a choice - we can follow Paul, ie. follow scripture or we can choose not to.
It was noted that this passage lists a number of sins that people fall into:
The other passage we looked at was Luke 14.15-24. It was suggested in the notes that some might want to identify the excluded with those who are excluded by the church now - eg. homosexual people. We talked about how this passage has been traditionally interpreted and also how it might have been understood by its first hearers. We felt that perhaps the first hearers of this passage might have been the poor and the outcasts of Israel, they might have seen it as a message of God's acceptance of them and rejection of their rich rulers. Traditionally we thought this was usually interpreted as being about Israel rejecting Jesus and the Gentiles becoming the new 'chosen people' (is this a 'plain' understanding of scripture?). Now another way is being proposed, that we widen the interpretation to make it about any group that is excluded. Asylum seekers in the UK came to to mind. Most of us felt that is was reasonable to 'use' this passage in different ways at different times and situations, and in general that the 'meaning' of scripture cannot be 'nailed down' for all time. If we think there is only one - received - understanding of scripture do we risk missing out on those moments of enlightenment that sometimes come when we look at a passage we might know very well but in which we somehow find something new revealed?
We wondered if GAFCON's position was tenable, do they always take the 'plain meaning'? - for example what does Jesus mean when he says that we must hate our Mothers and Fathers?. Perhaps they fudge things too? Perhaps Lambeth is more honest about problems of interpretation? Can we/should we use the bible tentatively? Some of us felt it was ok to live with doubt and uncertainty.
In general how should the church deal with disagreement? Should we always try and stick together or is it sometimes right to split?
Sometimes the local experience of church is more important than the institutional - we may not agree with the ideas of the institution but be happy in the local church. It will, inevitably, depend on the issue, however many of us were keen to hold onto the strength of the Anglican 'big tent' in which people can be together who don't agree on everything.
(still didn't quite finish, part 3 next week!).
Some of us thought that GAFCON's idea that scripture should be 'translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church's historic and consensual reading' might make finding something new in scripture difficult, it might tend to fix the meaning or rather interpretation of scripture.
The statement from Lambeth was much longer (as it always seems to be!) and seemed a bit of a fudge to some of us. The statement talks of using a range of different approaches to scripture 'under the guidance of the Holy Spirit' so perhaps both groups are making an appeal for having authority for their views?
We looked at two passages. Romans 1.18-33 A traditional way of reading this passage would be to see it as condemning homosexual acts. It has also been seen as being primarily about idol worship, also that what Paul writes about here cannot be compared to faithful, stable homosexual relationships that are part of 21st century Britain. How we see scripture obviously effects how we respond to this passage. If we take the GAFCON view their seems little scope but to see this passage as condemning homosexual relationships, however some Christians will not think that this passage condemns homosexual behaviour as we understand it now in our culture, they will want to take into account the change in context from when the letter was written to when it is being read now. Also they will want to bring to the passage knowledge about human sexuality that was not know by Paul. Both of these approaches take scripture seriously and see scripture as authoritative. Another approach is to accept that Paul really is condemning homosexual behaviour and to see that this presents us with a choice - we can follow Paul, ie. follow scripture or we can choose not to.
It was noted that this passage lists a number of sins that people fall into:
evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.and yet mostly the church only focuses on the sexual sins and other very common ones like gossiping and being rude to our parents are ignored! We wondered why the church over the ages has been so hung up about sex and sexual sin, some of us felt there was a fear of female sexuality at the heart of this. If we look back at our discussions about original sin we see that Augustine thought this was passed on during sex, which suggests that the church has had at least an ambivalent view of sex for a long time.
The other passage we looked at was Luke 14.15-24. It was suggested in the notes that some might want to identify the excluded with those who are excluded by the church now - eg. homosexual people. We talked about how this passage has been traditionally interpreted and also how it might have been understood by its first hearers. We felt that perhaps the first hearers of this passage might have been the poor and the outcasts of Israel, they might have seen it as a message of God's acceptance of them and rejection of their rich rulers. Traditionally we thought this was usually interpreted as being about Israel rejecting Jesus and the Gentiles becoming the new 'chosen people' (is this a 'plain' understanding of scripture?). Now another way is being proposed, that we widen the interpretation to make it about any group that is excluded. Asylum seekers in the UK came to to mind. Most of us felt that is was reasonable to 'use' this passage in different ways at different times and situations, and in general that the 'meaning' of scripture cannot be 'nailed down' for all time. If we think there is only one - received - understanding of scripture do we risk missing out on those moments of enlightenment that sometimes come when we look at a passage we might know very well but in which we somehow find something new revealed?
We wondered if GAFCON's position was tenable, do they always take the 'plain meaning'? - for example what does Jesus mean when he says that we must hate our Mothers and Fathers?. Perhaps they fudge things too? Perhaps Lambeth is more honest about problems of interpretation? Can we/should we use the bible tentatively? Some of us felt it was ok to live with doubt and uncertainty.
In general how should the church deal with disagreement? Should we always try and stick together or is it sometimes right to split?
Sometimes the local experience of church is more important than the institutional - we may not agree with the ideas of the institution but be happy in the local church. It will, inevitably, depend on the issue, however many of us were keen to hold onto the strength of the Anglican 'big tent' in which people can be together who don't agree on everything.
(still didn't quite finish, part 3 next week!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
